tv [untitled] June 7, 2013 4:30pm-5:01pm PDT
area who didn't want a cart in front of their place selling food. it was impossible for the young guys to get the information from the dpw as to who was making these complaints. it's hear say. it's unvetted. anyone can file a complaint. they are small carts. they didn't have loud music playing, the bars were consistently letting in and out and they boil sausages and hot dogs. they have sauerkraut and onions and condiments. the unregulated carts down the street were cooking bacon, onions and peppers and we believe that many of the complaints that were heard were about the smells that were coming from these unlicensed
and unregulated carts. the appellant went to the police and made a police report and they were told that the mission at that hour on the weekends is a busy place and chasing food vendors is not a high priority for them. that's very understandable. it's very understandable that responding to complaints about robberies is more important. a hearing was held in august on the public hearing order, the order for hearing only mentions one location and that's the 16th street location. if you look at the recommendations after which the d pw submitted it only mentions one location, the 16th street location. the dpw
rendered the harsh estest vote. they revoked their license. he came out to find out the revocation was the entire food service. there was no evidence, no evidence presented, he wasn't even aware of that as to the whole license. only one location was mentioned. we don't believe that the harshest penalty is what should have been given to them. they are young men trying to start out in business. they have spent a lot of money, invested a lot of time and bring a lot of passion to what they do. and we are hoping that the board in its discretion will reduce the penalty to a suspension for
both locations. they have not operated until they filed this notice of appeal. they obeyed the regulations as they saw fit. mr. stevens will admit that when he was informed in june that they had to begin to close down at 1:00 a.m., this is what they did. they began to pick up and pack out which takes about a half hour to an hour. during that period of time there were hot dogs left in their tins which were cooking and in order not to waste food, they did continue to sell. so, thank you very much. >> at what time did the appellant find out that the
revised permit was in effect where it limited to 1:00 a.m.? >> by james conversations with me, he told me he found out during the conversation on june 1. it does appear there was an e-mail sent out prior to that did correct the 3 a.m. to 1 a.m.. he did not read it. >> wasn't there also a phone call? >> i'm sorry? >> wasn't there a phone call received? >> that was on june 1. >> there was nothing before that is what you are saying? >> that's my understanding yes. >> what about the good neighbor policy that they never got the original issuance but the department was provided with the copy of the permit? >> it appears to me they were provided with that on june 1, when it was sent out on june 1.
they pledge two items on the policy, noise and smell. they boil hot dogs. there is no smell. they are on a very busy street where bars are constantly opening doors and letting people in and out and there is a lot of traffic. although i wasn't there and i can't a test to it. it would seem to me that maybe two or three people around a hotdog stand -- >> my question was when did they receive the good neighbor policy? >> it would appear they probably received it when they -- i believe it was in april that the dpw sent out the amended hours and they sent it along with that. he did not open at the mail. i don't think he knew what it was about. >> okay. thank you.
>> thank you. mr. fong? good evening commissioners. john with public works. the statement from the appellant was mostly correct. in the beginning we received multiple applications for location of this food cart. the primary one was on #16th street on montgomery. we had a public hearing on it and determination based upon the public hearing was to restrict the hours on 16th street, mondays through thursdays to i believe 1:00 a.m. and then, i stand corrected, to 12 midnight and fridays and saturdays to 1:00
a.m.. a direct order was drafted. at that point they had 90 days to get the fire department and the health department's approval. that information was provided to the applicant at some point subsequent to that we received appropriate information from both health and fire. one of my staff erroneously issued a permit for 3:00 a.m. and they quickly found out and corrected it and sent the applicant with the revised time which was submitted as part of the brief this this case. yes, we did erroneously issue a permit which has been corrected. over time we continued to receive complaints via e-mail with the documentation that the applicant continued to work after the time. we notified the
applicant of violation of the time permits. we continue to review these objections and violations afterwards. we decided at that point gifrn that we are providing proper notification to hold public hearing as it relates to revocation process. i understand the hearing suggest one location but the permit itself was revoked with two locations on it. i'm here to answer any questions you may have. >> you issued one permit for two locations? >> yes, the mobile food facilities program allows for 1 cart or truck at multiple locations throughout the day or one locations with multiple facilities. in this case it was one cart, multiple days at two
different locations. >> in your rules of procedures, if you want to call it that for this program, what does it say in there about revocation with respect to multiple locations in one permit? >> in this case the department is given wide latitude. we can revoke one location or the entirety. >> it's states the director can modify or revoke a permit. >> one last question for me is that the april issuance. refresh my memory from your brief. the permit was issued in april soon after that, you issued a revision to that. what date? >> that is correct. on friday
an e-mail was sent, a hard copy was sent to them which they signed contained erroneous information and corrected the information and a printout was sent on august 27th. >> to where? the address they had? >> yes. >> so did you e-mail and hard copy mail? >> i don't think we sent them a hard copy. we sent them an e-mail copy. >> there were e-mail correspondence. it was initial hard copy they came and signed. we found the error and revised it and sent them the revised permit. >> via e-mail and no hard copy? >> yes, sir. >> are there any complaints on the montgomery location?
>> my understanding is they have not operated there yet. >> also says that staff contacted applicant via phone. did they actually -- were they actually able to speak with the applicant at that time or did they leave a voice message? >> there were multiple phone calls i recollect. there were times they left a message and times they were able to discuss that with them. >> it was issued at 3:17 and once staff realized there was a mistake, they informed him of the error. was there a record they spoke to the applicant at that time? >> i cannot speak whether they were able to get them by phone. i have documents they were
corrected. >> i have documents there was a phone call. >> i'm sure there was a phone call made but i'm not sure if they were able to reach through or had to leave a voice mail. >> maybe off topic, but did the applicant says there was quite a few non-permitted vendors at that time. whose responsibility for enforcement would that lead to? >> this program has been challenging over the last year or so. what's been happening is we are having, both the health department and ourselves are getting various complaints from neighborhood groups of unpermitted people showing up around 1:00 in the morning and setting up. the department has been working with san francisco police department and the local police districts to assist in
the enforcement of these late night operations. what usually happens is when we are informed of it, by the time we can respond, usually the unpermitted merchant is go n from the site. enforcement is from dpw and from the health department with related food products. >> we have someone who is evidently paid the fees and they are operating beyond what their permit says, but at the same time we have people on the same block that are operating without any permits, and if that falls upon dpw and the enforcement falls upon dpw, what plans do you have to do that enforcement? >> the challenge that we face based upon the code is actually
very interesting. whereas the department can issue citations to a merchant, there is no policing power that we can, so if we go up to someone and ask to see a permit from them and they choose not to show a permit nor to provide information in terms of physical id's, there is nothing that our inspection staff can do with it because we do not have that policing power. it's been challenging and that's why we've been trying engage with both the health and fire department and the police department in assisting us. >> at this point there should probably be some legislation added to assist dpw in enforcement? >> that is correct. i believe there is going to be proposed legislation that will be coming to the board shortly to modify the mobile food facilities
program. >> okay. thank you. >> i have a question and i'm apologizing if it was asked by commissioner. i was looking for information. the initial communication, the initial permit with the 3:00 time limit. >> the application came from the person itself. >> the erroneous permit, how was that communicated? >> what happened was after the staff issued a permit they went back and rechecked -- >> no, how was the initial permit delivered to the appellant. >> the initial permit was handed. >> okay. and the second was delivered by e-mail. all right.
the objecters at the original permit hearing, what were the basis of the objections? >> most of the objections were related to the late night operations and that was the major cause for the hearing for officers to make a restriction of the time to shorten it up. >> okay. and the objecters for the late night were they neighbors, neighborhood businesses? who were they? not their names. >> this is usually the residents in the nearby area. the gist of it is a combination of the bar scene and the late nights from the bars and they are feeling that this food cart would exasperate already uncomfortable situation. >> okay. that's all. >> one last question. sorry.
when in pass when a license has been revoked how typical or how common is it for both locations to be revoked? i know it's multiple locations, one permit. is it traditionally that you would take both locations away? >> actually this is the first mobile food permit that we have revoked because typically, when we have one identified situations that merchants are in violation, it's remedy to take appropriate action. we try very hard not to revoke a permit if at all possible. >> the concerning is that you gave them multiple chances to comply and they have not complied? >> that is correct. >> what about suspension, you suspended permits, correct? o
you just go straight for it. when do you have a sort of a -- the appellant has requested a suspension as an alternative, has that the been contemplated? >> it was considered, but, again, this was a case where operation late at night beyond what was authorized under the permit, this was the biggest concern that the community that objected to so the department's decision was to revoke the permit. >> okay. thank you. suspension would have been within your right >> that's correct. >> is there an opportunity to reply? >> as any revokes they may apply one year from the date of revocation. >> okay. thank you. >> is there any public comment?
applied for 3 a.m. but they granted 1 a.m. closure which the rule stayed they should start closing a half hour before the time granted. i have basically 9 videos of them operating past 1:00 in the morning. and i would like to play you one. this is from 5/13 at 2:03 a.m. right outside my apartment window. it's very short. >> it's the noise from the bar?
>> no. they have a boom box and a sound system. they are also operating a gas powered generator that powers i don't know what, maybe the electricity for this. there is also a side table and chair. you can see it draws 6 bars on my block and it draws everybody underneath my window. [inaudible] i have another one that's from july 15. at 1:55 a.m.. same scenario. i was notified by the dpw that they called the person, mr. stevens
that they violated the permit and he received a certified mail notice that he was in violation. after june 24th for whatever reason he was not for the most part was not showing up. so there was none after that. he was operating a sound system, a power generator. the gentleman before me said there were other carts in the area, but there haven't been any that i have seen. there are more on mission street. since he has been gone i saw one which i called the police and they came immediately and moved that person on. needless to say this attracts people lie magnets under my windows this is a
mixed use area. thank you. >> can i clarify one thing. you indicated that they weren't there after june 24th? >> no, i'm sorry. that was a misstatement. i was not videotaping. they were there once, button july 5, all the other days, they did not show up. whether they would have stayed passed that time is -- [inaudible] >> okay. [inaudible] okay. we
can start rebuttable now. i assume we have no public comment. >> you have three minutes. >> mr. stevens would like to make a brief statement and i would like to continue on the rebuttal. >> first of all i would like to apologize. >> can you switch the microphones? >> i would like to apologize for what i saw was not acceptable. however, i will say that gentlemen there was acting like he was a decent customer of ours and his house is directly over our cart. we weren't aware that we were causing a
situation like that. a lot of people really really enjoy this cart. we had support from the bars in front of us. if he had asked us nicely at all or to lower that music. i would have done that in a heartbeat. i didn't operate at 100 montgomery because i wanted to purchase a better cart. recently i have operated there and it has a lot of support by everybody there. a lot of the businesses as well. thank you. >> couple of things on the rebuttal. on june 1, [inaudible] he noticed that he did receive something from clint over at the dpw and it says, let me look into the non-permitted vendors, can you
provide me with information so we can do an investigation. i heard mr. kwaung say the only policing power is against the people who actually follow the rules and get the permits and go through licensing procedure. the other vendors who truly present a hazard to the public are the ones that they have the power against. that's not very fair. i also want to get draw the attention to dpw order no. 180469 which says a suspension of revocation in the public right of way at 3153, 16 street. it doesn't specify montgomery nor the order. which again the following one
location and it gives the location at 33153. in it's power, if the board see's fit to uphold the revocation based on neighbor comments or whatever else, we would request that the new montgomery street, they have been operating there and they have been following all the rules. the young man would bring a passion to what they do. i think you saw that in the video that they do bring a passion to what they do. mr. stevens said it was not acceptable. he apologized and i truly believe they are sorry and we hope the board allows them to utilize both locations in its discretion. thank you. >> i have a question. how withel -- well does the appellant know the rules on the
food cart. there is one specific related to music of noise ambient. it's not very loud delta that above the ambient that they are allowed to provide. >> the video is damning. as mr. steve's said this is a man that came to purchase food from them and acted like he was part of the neighborhood and hanging out when he was secretly videotaping them. if he had said to them would you please lower it. it's too loud especially at this time of night. >> i don't think that was the question. >> it's okay. i understand. >> how well do they know the rules? >> clearly they don't. if they do, it appears to be